Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

4

3

product the importation of which on 2 of this Act shall be subject under the custom laws of the s of the importer, his agent, or or having reason to know of

this Act shall take effect on calendar month beginning after is Act.

5

Mr. Moss. I am very pleased this morning to welcome as our fir witness the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Hays.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE L. HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE I
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, first let me say th H.R. 6143 is a result of a conversation that I had in a meeting in m district with a couple of people in the drycleaning business who a constituents of mine, and I have no particular part of authorship the exact text of the bill.

What we would like to do, very simply, is to have labels on in ported textiles, especially, and I would have no objection to domest ones also, setting forth some kind of basic cleaning instructions that the person who does the cleaning knows what kind of a fabr he is dealing with.

This man said he had some trouble, a considerable amount trouble, with imported fabrics, giving them a normal drycleanin that you would give a fabric made in this country. And sometim these disintegrated, or holes would come in them: the customer the came back to him and said you did it, and, of course, he said we did but we did not know what kind of fabric we were dealing with, a we are more or less working in the dark.

I do not think he wanted, and I certainly do not want to penali anybody, but it seems to me with the exotic new fabrics that a being invented almost daily, and the tremendous amount coming something should be done. I think I got the distinct impression t ones they were having the most trouble with were the ones fro Japan. Of course, I realize when you get fabrics in a bolt from a country it is not likely to tell what to do about drycleaning, but t manufacturer ought to know that and he ought to be able, witho very much expense, to put some kind of label on it.

I was just talking with Mr. Martin from the Trade Commissi here and I was telling him that occasionally when I go to England buy woolen sweaters for my daughter who is high school age notice that the British are now putting labels in their woolen sweat telling exactly how to launder them, use a certain temperature water and a certain kind of soap and I assume they do this beca they are very proud of their woolens and they probably want to m the customer happy so they will buy more.

I would just emphasize that there is no desire on my part penalize anybody, but a desire to have these textiles carry some k of a label so the people who have to clean them will know, as I s before, know what they are doing and what they are processing.

I know that the Federal Trade Commission has had hearings this. Nothing much has happened, nothing much has happend up now. I hope something will happen. If they can give some assuran that they are going to issue regulations that will cover this withi reasonable time, then maybe that would take care of it. As I sa am completely openminded about it. I think there is a problem i that ought to be solved. Whether a regulation by the FTC is

62-270 0-71—2

[graphic]

way to do it or whether legislation is, I will leave up to the good
judgment of the committee.

I was kidding Mr. Martin a little bit. He said they are working on it and I said well, does that mean we will get some results in a few years and he said he hoped it would not be years. I have one of the former counsel down from the Trade Commission working on my committee, House Administration, as general counsel and he tells me anything the FTC does is a matter of years, not months. Now, perhaps having gotten that in the record, that might be some kind of stimulus to them to react a little more swiftly, and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, after you hear Mr. Martin you would stimulate him a little more, if that is the route you care to take.

Finally, let me say that if you think this bill can be amended to make it more simple, or even more precise, that is all right with me I simply transmit my ideas of what we would like to have to the legal counsel around here and this is what they came up with, and as you know, not being a lawyer myself, I have to rely on somebody else for matters of this kind.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. If the members of the committee have any questions I would be glad to try to answe them.

Mr. Moss. Well, I think this bill, having been drafted, shows tha you have concerned yourself with a problem all of us have hear about. I know I have from the cleaners out in my own district com plaining over their inability to determine the proper approach t taking care of certain types of garments that come in, and there seem to be no place they can go. I guess they can check with the Nationa Institute of Dry Cleaners here in Washington, but sometimes th information is not accurate and the results are rather unfortunate.

Mr. HAYS. If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, sometimes there is n way of knowing what to ask for because you just simply do not kno what the fabric is. Now, maybe the National Institute of Dry Clear ers or maybe somebody knows what Terelyn relates to in our ow nomenclature, but certainly I do not. It is just a name. It is a mar made fiber of some kind, but what it is composed of I have no ide Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will try to determine from the Fe eral Trade Commission the posture of their present rulemaking. Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. No questions. I just want to welcome Mr. Hays the committee.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Hays, suppose this section 2 simply read th you cannot move such textile products in commerce if the produ (1) does not have a label or tag permanently affixed or attach thereto which accurately and clearly defines the material of which t product is made and (2) disclosed concerning such product pr cedures concerning laundering and cleaning instructions, et ceter et cetera? What I am getting at is I really do not see any differen between products coming from out of the country or in the count except that there might be the necessity of some rather detailed d closure that you could hardly put on a tag. What I am thinking of

two conditions: (1) the definition of the product on the goods itself and, (2) a disclosure which some agency of government could require be published saying some proper place could be available to laundering and drycleaning establishments that would further disclose the nature of the product.

Mr. HAYS. I think, Mr. Eckhardt, that would work. I assume that all of these drycleaners have a handbook telling how to clean certain fabrics. If it said or told him the name of the fabric and said refer to the manual or something of that kind.

Mr. ECKHARDT. In most cases that would probably be enough, but in some cases, it might be a good safeguard to require, particularly the manufacturer in another country, to at least provide for the Bureau of Standards or some agency of the Federal Government a little more detail.

Mr. HAYS. I think that is exactly right. I think that would probably solve it. As I say, I have no particular pride of authorship in this language. I just tried to attack the problem so that the man who is doing the work will have some idea of what he is working with, and I think your suggestion would work all right. When I looked at this section I do not mind telling you that I wondered how much of a label you would have to have to carry all of the information necessary, and it might be, as you know, many manufacturers in the country put a label in that says do not launder, dryclean only. Many products bear that label, and you would assume, I guess if it said dryclean only, you could just use standard drycleaning procedures and the material would stand up. But, these people tell me some of the foreign stuff does not hold up under our standard drycleaning procedures. That is why we aimed at this. I have no objection to making it completely encompassing all fabrics as far as that is concerned, but they seem to think their big problem is with the imports with the stuff they just do not know how to handle.

Mr. ECKHARDT. Sure. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Moss. Mr. McCollister?

Mr. McCoLLISTER. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Hays, we thank you for coming here and giving us your views on the legislation. I assure you we will review it very carefully with the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Martin, you and your associates-you gentlemen take a seat here.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MARTIN, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM D. DIXON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INDUSTRY GUIDANCE, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I would like to start out by saying that Chairman Kirkpatrick regrets that he could not be here today, but he had an appointment out of town, and the notice was rather short, and he could not break it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before

this committee to express my views on H.R. 6143, a bill to require that certain textile products bear a label containing cleaning instructions.

As you may know, the Federal Trade Commission has proposed a trade regulation rule relating to the care labeling of textile products. Such rules are designed to accomplish two objectives: (1) to furnish businessmen with specific guidance as to what the law requires; and (2) to assist the Commission in carrying out its enforcement responsibilities.

The proposed rule was issued by the Commission on November 4, 1969; public hearings were held in January and March 1970. Six days of hearings were held and 47 witnesses testified. In addition, literally hundreds of detailed statements and opinions were submitted for the public record. The public record closed in April 1970, and consists of 10 volumes, one of the largest records ever developed in connection with a proposed trade regulation rule.

Since the record closed, the Commission's staff has been working to prepare a report on the proceeding. This report has recently been completed by the staff and contains a detailed consideration of all the issues raised by the proposed rule and recommendations which the staff has made to the Commission.

The Commission has not yet had an opportunity to consider the staff report. Therefore, it would not be appropriate at this time for the Commission or its staff to comment on the substantive merits of H.R. 6143. Moreover, because the Commission has proposed a rule, has held extended hearings, and compiled a voluminous record and is about to consider a staff report, the committee may wish to give some consideration to delaying any final recommendations on H.R. 6143 until the Commission has acted on the proposed rule.

There are many similarities between the proposed rule and H.R. 6143. The definitions used in the bill seem intended to cover the same areas. However, the definition of "textile products" varies from that proposed by the Commission in that it seems to include only commodities using fibers, yarn, or fabrics produced outside the United States. Such limited coverage seems inadequate to meet the needs of consumers. The Commission's proposed rule requires labels on textile products sold in the United States and I believe it is both fair and reasonable to maintain this broad coverage.

The substantive portion of the Commission's proposed rule is in three parts. The first part would require that a permanently attached label be affixed to all textile products and that the label accurately and clearly disclose proper instructions for the laundering and cleaning of such products. Section 2 of H.R. 6143 contains essentially the same language and will have essentially the same effect. The second part of the proposed rule would require a certification from the manufacturer to the consumer that the instructions are valid and proper. The third part of the proposed rule provides for immunity from liability for any person, such as a retailer, who relies upon a guarantee from his suppliers that the product is not mislabeled. H.R. 6143 has no similar provisions and, hence, these last two parts of the Commission's proposed rule do not concern us here. Bearing in mind the similarities in H.R. 6143 and the first part of

the proposed rule, I believe it might be helpful to take a closer look at some of the major problems which developed during the rulemaking proceedings. These same problems will, no doubt, be raised during these hearings on the subject bill.

In setting forth these problems I am going to try to give both sides and not suggest any answers.

First, I would like to direct your attention to the words "any textile products." These words indicate the product coverage of both the proposed rule and the subject bill. It seems obvious that the words would create a very broad coverage.

As you might well expect, this broad language encountered a great deal of comment. Many statements were submitted which argue that even if care labeling is a good idea, it is not necessary to label every textile product. For example, it was suggested that there are a great many textile products which only require "routine" or "normal" care and that everybody knows what that is. The logical conclusion of this contention is that the only products that really need to be labeled are those which require “special” or “exceptional”care.

Under such an approach, product coverage would depend on whether specific products were characterized as needing "exceptional" or "normal" care. The Commission would probably have to examine at least each product line and decide what "exceptional" and "normal" care was for that product line and then categorize individual products in the line. Considering the number of textile products manufactured and the varieties within textile lines, this would be a tremendous undertaking.

On the other hand, the Commission also received many statements to the effect that "total" product coverage contemplated by the proposed rule was probably the best approach. No statements, however, failed to recognize that some limitation on product coverage would be desirable in any event. It is obvious that some textile products simply are not made to be cleaned or refurbished at all. A few outstanding examples are typewriter ribbons, shoe strings, and tennis

balls.

In considering this problem of product coverage, a key issue is how much consumers already know about cleaning certain fibers and other textile components. There was quite a bit of material submitted which undertook to estimate how much consumers know about care and maintenance techniques. Many industry representatives seemed to think most consumers knew quite a lot and, therefore, did not need extensive and comprehensive care labels. On the other hand, the consumer spokesmen were of the opinion that consumers really do not know much at all, and, therefore, need all the help they can get. There was also substantial comment to the effect that it really did not make any difference what anyone "knew" about care and maintenance because it is not possible to determine by visual inspection, what components are in a particular product. And, even if a consumer could determine the product's components he cannot tell what dyeing, finishing, and other manufacturing processes the product has been subjected to. These are the very factors that determine what care and maintenance should be applied.

« ForrigeFortsett »